Trinidad

I am wondering... Is there ever a session where SB ends the evening with a positive MP score? Rik

In my world, it is quite common for dummy to politely ask if he can ... (do whatever he needs to do). From that moment on declarer, the defenders or a kibitzer will play dummy's cards. It goes without saying that when we are defending we will attempt to play dummy's card only if (we started with an even number in the suit and would be able to beat dummy's card) or (started with an odd number in the suit and cannot beat dummy's card). (Generally known as Modified Slavinsky Dummy Play ;)) Rik

That ("I'd still rather stay here") is what most people think in most other places in the world (e.g. Mexico) too. True, but are these the only two options? (And are these the only criteria for moving?) Rik

I think the cases can be categorized differently: L-S and F-N were asked to confess, if not then the case would be made public. They didn't confess, the case has been made public. The cheating is obvious: The code has been cracked. Its use is confirmed. I don't know whether P-S were asked to confess, but either way, they did confess to have behaved "unethically" and they "suspended themselves". A confession makes the case pretty obvious. Then Boye announced that more cases would be sent to the WBF to handle. They were not intended to be made public. The WBF "uninvited" B-Z. According to Jassem that was because of cheating accusations. So, where the L-S, F-N and P-S cases are obvious for the public, the B-Z case is not as clear. But supposedly the WBF has evidence that it is reviewing (whatever that means). This evidence may or may not be more extensive than what the public has seen. In my opinion, B-Z are consciously* signalling with the way the bidding cards are spaced. But I haven't seen a fully cracked code applied on a set of boards where an expert could predict the spacing of the bids and where he points out that the partner has used the signal. The investigation has been messy. Rik * When I was a beginner, I played with a very nice partner who signaled hi-lo by the way he played the cards: When he played a high card out of his hand, he "played it high": the path of the card was a nice arch from his hand, to the level of his nose, before it was placed on the table. A low card was "played low": it was taken out of the hand, put on the table and pushed forward. When I picked up the pattern, I told him to stop it and he hadn't been at all aware that he had been doing it... but, much to his embarrassment, he had a bit of difficulty getting rid of this habit. This behavior was subconscious. I don't think that is the case for B-Z.

In all seriousness, I don't get such an attitude. I was hoping Poland would score exactly 0 VP in each of the RR matches. Not because I intrinsically have something against Poles, not at all. But I would prefer a situation without problems over a situation with problems. If Poland wouldn't score a single VP, they would not be in the knockouts, the effect of Poland playing on the standings for the other teams in the RR would have been minimal, and -should BZ be innocent- Poland could hardly claim that they wold have gotten anywhere with BZ. But some people just love a lot of problems so that they can see how others are failing to solve them. Rik

That is not my understanding. I thought Gawrys and Klukowski were considered to be better than BZ (but that BZ were on the sponsored team that qualified). Look, I congratulate the current Polish team for reaching the Bermuda Bowl final under awful circumstances. That is quite a feat. I also think that the WBF made a big mistake, withdrawing the invitation for BZ. Either they should have let the Poles play as they were. Should it turn out that BZ were cheating in Opatija, then you solve that problem at that point in time. (And if there is not sufficient evidence, there wouldn't be a problem.) Or they should have "uninvited" the entire team. If BZ were cheating in Opatija, then the Polish qualification for the BB should be void. We are in this mess now. Let's realize that the Polish players are in between a rock and a hard place. For the moment, they qualified legitimately for the BB (no one has been disqualified). Their sponsor wants them to play. The people in Poland are convinced that BZ are innocent. At this moment, and during the whole tournament in Chennai, the Poles have only had losing options. They cannot possibly do it right. As an aside and for the record: Do I believe that BZ are guilty? Yes, I do. (They are either guilty or incredibly stupid.) But let's not make the current Polish players in Chennai guilty by association. I could easily imagine that they will hand over their medals when it is officially clear that BZ have cheated. Rik

Summarizing: We don't know the Polish system, we don't know the Polish style, we don't even know the Polish auction (there was no 4NT in the given auction, but the text in the OP says that there was no LA to [the chosen] 4NT). Perhaps a good idea to start a new thread with the correct information? Rik

or Smile? :) Rik

I agree. But to be fair, in this case it really is an incompatibility of systems and philosophies on how to run a civic register. In Sweden all the information (by government agencies and private profit and non-profit organisations, e.g. also the Swedish Bridge League, SBF) is tied to one thing: (the equivalent of) a social security number. And this number has been the basis of the register for a long time. You get one when you are born or as soon as you enter the country as an alien resident (So, I have one too and I still know mine by heart, even though it's been more than 10 years ago since we lived in Sweden. You need this number for everything.) In the Netherlands everything is tied to your birth information. This makes a birth certificate relatively important. I also have a Dutch social security number. I don't know what it is, since I rarely need it and I know where to find it. This social security number is also a fairly recent thing. I guess it has been in use for about 25 years now. The Swedes cannot imagine that a country can run a civic register without a social security number. The Dutch can not imagine that one number can be the key to all the information about you. In addition, the Dutch are very apprehensive of efficient civic registers. (It is somewhat like the American right to bear arms to form a militia.) In WWII, the civic register was very efficient. It made it very easy for the Germans to pick out the Jews. So, from the Dutch perspective, obtaining and exchanging information should be difficult. From the Swedish perspective (Sweden was never occupied) it should be as easy as possible. If I would have it my way, I would implement the Swedish system today. But ... Rik

In those days, there were no nice web sites and brochures. And, no, my children were covered by point 4 (family members are allowed to join). But how can I prove that they are members of my family? ... Exactly, with a birth certificate. Rik

IANAL, but I don't think that is true. Any EU citizen has a right to look for work for three months and reside in the Netherlands. The movement of labor is free. A non-working citizen is not labor. Furthermore, nobody was denying my children the right to become a resident of the Netherlands. They only needed to show a birth certificate. But Sweden, where we came from, doesn't have birth certificates. The Dutch Embassy in Stockholm knew that of course, so they issue passports to Dutch citizens that are born in Sweden without the need for a birth certificate. But the local county clerk in a small county in the countryside couldn't understand/believe that and wasn't able to handle the case: "no birth certificate, no residency". So, this means that you need to do the work of the county clerk yourself: Find out how you can get something from the Swedish authorities that would be accepted by the Dutch government. The solution that we found, after quite a bit of searching, was a route through the City of The Hague: The kids were first registered there (with the aid of the Dutch Embassy in Sweden and a Swedish law firm: '$$'). Then the City of The Hague issued a (Dutch) birth certificate to the county where we lived. Now, all was fine and dandy. So, though it is all legally allowed, that doesn't mean that it is easy to move from one country to another (not even within the EU). A hassle is an understatement. Rik

It happened a while ago, so I don't remember all the consequences, but these I am fairly certain about: They would not have been allowed to live in the Netherlands. (They would be illegal residents.) They would have to go to school. (All children of the appropriate age, residing in the Netherlands (legally, illegally, or otherwise (if there is an 'otherwise' ;)), have to go to school.) They would not be able to get married in the Netherlands (and possibly not in some other places either). They would get in trouble with the registration of their own children. They would not be able to get a driver's license. We would be considered dinkies for tax purposes (double income, no kids). We would not get child support. (All parents get money from the government for their children.) We would not get daycare support. (Parents get money to pay for daycare or after school care when both are working. This is income dependent.) They would not be able to have a bank account, or a phone contract (can you imagine a Dutch high school kid without a phone?), or ... They wouldn't be able to get work (or an internship, even if it is a mandatory part of their education). They wouldn't be able to buy or rent a home. You can imagine that this is only the start of the list. So, we solved the problem and now (after lots of searching, some paperwork, some expenses, papers being sent back: "You shouldn't come to us", more paperwork, more expenses) the Netherlands officially is of the opinion that my children were born and they are legal residents of this wonderful country. Rik

I agree with Phil and Ken. I have lived in a few different countries and you need to be pretty crazy to do that. It has broadened my view tremendously and I would not have wanted to live my life in the town where I grew up. (As a matter of fact, currently I happen to live in the country where I grew up and it makes me feel slightly uneasy...) But the hassle (not to mention the cost) getting from one country to another is big: It takes a lot of hard work to integrate into your new culture. And on the administrative side, you won't get any help. Nobody knows what needs to be done. You have to figure out everything yourself. Public service people are clueless. And you are continuously dealing with impossibilities. One of many examples: When we moved to the Netherlands (the country where I was born, of which I have always been a citizen, and the country that my children were citizens of) we could not get the children registered as residents of the Netherlands. They were registered as citizens of the Netherlands, they had passports of the Netherlands, they were living with us in the Netherlands on a proper address, but they could not be registered as residents of the Netherlands. (For my Finnish wife and I there were no such problems.) The reason (don't laugh too loud, I disclaim all liability for choking accidents): "We do not have a document that proves that they were born." The person who said this sentence had the kids' passports in her hand and was looking at the kids when she pronounced the sentence. And when I pointed out that it didn't seem to be a problem when they got their passports, she said: "Indeed. For a passport you don't need to proof that you are born, but to register as a resident you do." And on my question: "How do I proof that they were born?", the obvious answer was: "I don't know. That is not my department." In the end, we obviously got it all worked out. And after a few international moves, you get to know how to work the system. But it is a drag. Rik

Maybe someone can run a sim. ;) Rik

When I write this post, in response to you, aiming it at you, Blackshoe, I communicate. Whether you chose to read it is not relevant and whether you chose to act on it is not relevant at all. This post is communication. When West asked "Do you play best minor?", he/she was (supposedly) aiming it at East. That is communication and is in defiance of Law 73B1. For this, it is irrelevant whether East acted on the communication, or even heard the question. When, in a normal situation, West asks a question, he is communicating to his opponents, not to his partner, East. The fact that East can hear the question is a side effect that makes the fact that West asked this question UI to East. But this doesn't make it communication from West to East. Rik

UI is a normal and inevitable negative side effect of the procedures of the game. Sometimes you need to think about what to bid or play, sometimes you need to answer a question, etc. All this information is UI to your partner, but it is inevitable that this happens. In such a situation, giving UI is not an infraction. This is in sharp contrast to what actually happened in the OP (at least that is what the OP believes, otherwise I am sure he wouldn't have posted this). The UI was not a side effect of an action that is necessary to play the game. The UI was the main effect (and possibly/probably the intended effect) of an action that was completely unnecessary to play the game. I think this is a clear case of 73B1 (not of 73B2): Rik

There are two things to consider. You want to lead the right suit (active). You don't want to lead the wrong suit (passive). 1. The opening lead is made blind. You only see your own cards and you have the information from the bidding. All other leads have the information from the dummy as well as from the previous plays. Simply put: of all the leads that defenders are going to make during a hand, the opening lead is much more likely to be wrong than any of the other leads (perhaps even than all other leads combined). So, if partner -with all the extra information that he has- knows that your opening lead was wrong, it makes sense to try another suit to beat the contract. 2. Once the opening lead has been made, and it turned out to be a wrong lead, quite often the damage in that suit has been done: you blew a trick, but you cannot blow a second trick there anymore. That means that often it is better to continue the suit, rather than to guess to lead a new suit... and blow a trick there too. What you see often is that a spade lead would set the contract by two, but the opening lead was a heart, blowing a trick for the defense. Now the contract should be down one. But third hand, unhappy with the fact that the heart lead blew a trick, tries his luck somewhere else. With little to guide him, he now tries a diamond and a second trick is blown and the contract suddenly makes. And, obviously, there is still case number 3: The opening lead might be right. Rik

Come on, Mike. When people quote you in full the CAPITALS DON'T FIT ON THE SCR ;) Rik

Thanks for clarifying. My previous post was based on the assumption that takeout would be alertable (as it used to be when I was playing in the US, I am getting old). If penalty is alertable then that post lost its basis. Rik

Of course, Helene replied to a joke with a joke. Nevertheless, there is a serious part to this. Helene showed how "math wonkiness" can be used in these cheating questions. People talk about things like correlation between positions of trays and desired leads. But correlation is only one mathematical term that could be used. There are other mathematical tools that might be more useful in the analysis of the data. Probably they should already be recognized before we gather data. I think that in this process it is very important to let the bridge experts handle the bridge part (e.g. "What opening lead do I desire?"). But it is equally important to let the math experts do the "math wonkiness". It won't do us much good if the bridge analyses are great, but the statistics are done by amateurs who don't get the "math wonkiness". Rik

North clearly shouldn't have bid 5♠. He should have passed after asking: "What does that cuebid mean?" ;) Rik

"Do you play best minor?" - "No, your minor is obviously better." ;) Rik

Now, you are probably in a mess. But don't worry, there is a way out. Always assume that there was no infraction. This means that you should play your best bridge now, and assume that the information that you got from the opponents ("Dbl is not alertable and, hence, for penalties.") is correct. This means that East has a big hand, with about 4 clubs, and West has a singleton or void in clubs, a lot of spades and little else. As soon as it becomes reasonably clear that the explanation was wrong (e.g. because East puts a 3=4=5=1 distribution in the dummy) you call the TD. You explain that there was no alert and that (e.g.) the dummy looks more like a support double than a penalty double to you. The TD will tell you to finish playing the hand and call him back if you think you have been damaged. So that is what you will do. After the hand, you will see that West will be the one with the club length, instead of East. That means that: East intended his double as support West understood the double as support This means that it is highly unlikely that EW are playing double as penalty. When I am the TD, I typically weight this "the proof is in the pudding" evidence very heavily. You can write on a CC whatever you want, but at the table it becomes clear what your real agreements are. In such a case, I will not say that they don't play penalty doubles. I will just say that the evidence that they aren't is stronger. So, if all this happens, I would rule MI. And if there is damage, I would adjust the score. However, not all TDs are like me. So, I would do the above once. If the TD basically says that you are an idiot and you should have known, or that he doesn't rule in your favor for some other reason, then follow Lamford's advice and just ask. Rik

If this is in the ACBL (and the fact that the OP mentions 'tick boxes' suggests that) then AFAIK the default (not alertable) meaning is penalty. So, the opponents may well have a misunderstanding. In that case, I would certainly not ask but hope I would be able to score +380 on a deal where the opponents can make 3♠. Rik

Does England have one national colour (for this one occasion I will use the English spelling of "color" ;) )? The Dutch ladies are represented by a beautiful Irish green. Rik